I wanted you to know that I recently read your statement regarding the proposed boycott of ‘Ender’s Game’, and I can understand where you’re coming from in your plea for tolerance. Believe me, I can understand what it’s like to worry that your livelihood will be affected by the intolerance of others. Many of my LGBT friends have had to face open discrimination in the workplace due to the kind of open hatred you personally fostered with your time and money…and in fact, continue to foster today, despite your belief that the whole issue is now “moot”. So I can deeply sympathize with your hope that “the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.”

To that end, I pledge that I will in fact show just as much tolerance of you as I expect to see you and others show towards people of different sexual preferences and identities (by the way, I assume that since the issue is now “moot”, you’ll be disbanding NOM? After all, no sense throwing good money after bad, right?) In that spirit, I pledge the following:

I will not seek to deprive you of your legal and constitutional rights.

I will not seek to have you declared mentally ill and institutionalized.

I will not seek to have normal, healthy sexual activities that you perform in private with consenting adults declared illegal, in order to “send a message” to you about their morality.

I will not seek to have you declared an unfit parent based on your sexual preference/inclination, nor will I suggest you act in a sexually predatory fashion towards prepubescent children who match your sexual preference.

I will not refuse to serve you at my place of business.

I will not advocate the overthrow of the United States government in order to install a puppet regime that discriminates against your sexual preference/inclination.

Because I agree with your request for tolerance, I freely and happily pledge to all these things. I think you’d no doubt agree that I am meeting you more than halfway, given your previous verbal and financial advocation on LGBT issues. Nonetheless, as you pointed out, your backwards and hateful rhetoric is rapidly receding into history’s rear view mirror, and you are rapidly becoming seen as nothing more than a bigoted old crank who nobody listens to anymore. In that light, I agree that it’s easy to be tolerant in victory. So let’s stand on this agreement and let bygones be bygones.

…oh, you may note that “paying good money to see your shitty-ass movie” isn’t included in the definition of ‘tolerance’. That wasn’t what you were asking me to do, was it? Drop me a line back and let me know!

Also, does anyone really take “Ender’s Game” seriously after he eviscerated it with the whole Ender’s Shadow series? I would love to say I am boycotting it, but that would be disingenuous — I would also apparently be boycotting amputations and root canals. If only he had something cool to really boycott!

I think you’re right to isolate the weird diversion taken by Card, and his defenders, regarding seeing his film. Boycotts, as a general practice, are based on the simple political practice of refusing to throw one’s own time and money to discriminatory activities. In turn, those who protest boycotts tend to evince an attitude that they are, in fact, entitled to the money of those who are boycotting them. This can be seen as much in the case of Chick-Fil-A as in the Montgomery bus boycotts–a profound belief that to refuse to spend your money on the casual luxury in question is not to enact your own rights as a consumer, but rather an affront to a capitalist market in which said money is always already as good as spent. Put another way: not wanting to see “Ender’s Game” is, to Orson Scott Card and Lionsgate, not a practice of your rights as a consumer, but rather a deprivation of their rights, as producers of consumable entertainment, to your money. Like Card’s redeployment of the rhetoric of tolerance, it’s a frankly disgusting vision of a world in which the only truth is the right of the entertainment producer to the money of those who would consume said entertainment.

(Having said that, John, I would [briefly, and on a VERY different register] argue against your definition of “normal, healthy sexual activities.” I agree, as you’re clearly arguing, that those who protest homosexual activities are practicing a very real oppression. I’m not, however, sure that “healthy,” and particularly “normal,” are helpful terms with which to locate sexual practices. This isn’t to say that homosexuality isn’t “normal,” but rather that “normal” strikes me as an intensely reductive framework into which we can fit a wide range of sexual activities.
This might be too much self-insertion, but I tend to think that “consensual” is a much more functional sexual gauge than “normal,” as a way of avoiding the abstract-to-the-point-of-danger moral relativism that drives such organizations as NAMBLA while nonetheless retaining the rights of both gay and straight individuals to practice mutually consensual sexual activities and queerness which can challenge heteronormative models of sexuality without denying the possibility of alternative hetero- [as well as homo-] sexual practices within the scope of non-normative and queer sexualities.)

I hope you actually sent this to him, it pretty much sums up the issue.

I’m normally kind of moderate on the “author with crazy views” subject. I might make an effort to separate the work from the crazy if the work is good enough, but any time anyone backs up their repellent views by actually spending their money and time to promote said views, then I have to cease supporting them in any way.

So did Card imagine this, or are people really looking to boycott this because it’s based on something he wrote 30 years ago? Because in terms of the actual film he’s one of a dozen producers and that seems to be the extent of his involvement.

If it’s true, that’s punishing a tremendous number of talented and probably-not-bigoted people for being tangentially associated with a bigoted asshole. Which seems kinda dumb. Otherwise, I am totally onboard with the content and spirit of the letter.

Card’s been so much of an asshole I’ve never even been able to bring myself to read Ender’s Game despite being told by a lot of people it’s great. It’s not a moral stance or boycott based on his political position; it’s a purely emotional reaction and I can’t pretend otherwise.

If it’s true, that’s punishing a tremendous number of talented and probably-not-bigoted people for being tangentially associated with a bigoted asshole.

Well, not really. Most of the people associated with a movie get paid regardless of a film’s success. The make-up artists don’t get a cut, they get a salary (for examples). The people who will lose money (the studio, the higher-up producers) will then learn that producing a film based on a notoriously bigoted asshole is not a good idea, which is a good thing in my book.

Yeah, pretty much anybody who actually works on this movie in any capacity, from screenwriters to directors to the people who provide everyone with sandwiches and bottled water, are going to get paid for this movie whether it outperforms Avatar or sinks below the level of Delgo. The studio and producers are the ones who are, essentially, investing in the movie to be a success so they get a big return on that investment. If it isn’t then they’re the ones who stand to take a bath, but Joe’s Hollywood Catering and all the makeup artists and sound guys and the people who worked on the script aren’t going to have a black mark on their resume.

But yeah, John basically gets to the heart of the issue of pretty much anybody who talks about boycotts as “censorship” or “unfair” or “intolerant” or whatever…it’s the up-til-then unchallenged assumption that people are entitled to everyone else’s patronage and that anybody seeking to deny them their rightful earnings through the censorious measure of “encouraging people not to throw their money at things associated with a virulent homophobic bigot”…

…and for the people keeping score at home, Card isn’t a homophobic bigot in the “oh man grandpa says some embarrassing things but he’s not really a bad person” sense, Card is a guy who has actively campaigned against gay rights and served as a member of organizations in favor of things like the Defense of Marriage Act. His bigotry isn’t passive, it’s active.

…and that anybody seeking to deny them their rightful earnings is, in fact, the real monster in the same way that people who argue against, say, racism/sexism are the real racists/sexists or something.

Good point. Though I’d imagine that a successful movie makes you more likely to get future work- but we’re getting into indirect stuff here which is kind of what I was complaining about to begin with, so I’ll gladly concede that one.

If anybody does boycott the film, I hope they take the time to send letters and/or emails to the studio explaining why. Without explanations- and lots of them -the people in charge are more or less free to ascribe that failure to whatever they please.

All well and good, but the man is going to get a substantial cut of the profits on this movie no matter what Lionsgate does.

I gave this man good money when I bought my copies of Ender’s Game and the Alvin Maker books before I found out he was a hatemonger sitting on the board of a hate group. He’s not getting another dime of my money at this point without a severe “come to Jeebus moment” where he dedicates a huge amount of his future income to fighting for gay marriage rights in the remaining states where it’s illegal. I’m not holding my breath on that one.

And I swear to Grod Ender’s Game must be like Heinlein’s juvenile work in that it seems like almost everyone I know who read it for the first time before they hit the age of 20 thinks its a masterpiece and almost everyone I know who read it for the first time after they were older than 20 thinks its fairly mediocre at best military sci-fi. I’m not sure that a movie version is going to do much better than Disney’s “John Carter” movie did, given that Edgar Rice Burroughs work seems to have a similar effect as well…

Card has not resigned from nom’s board, which according to their website is fighting back against the assault on marriage- which is weird, because the fight should be moot.

Lionsgate has issued a statement in support of LGBT rights and says it includes same-sex unions in its benefits policies. I’m also upset I gave this man money. I hope this movie does semi-ok but not as well as it’s supposed to.

You’re kinda supposed to include same-sex unions in your benefits though – the only reason Lionsgate have “decided” to NOT discriminate against same-sex couples is because groups like NOM have worked hard to make sure it’s legal for employers to discriminate against s-s couples, so whatever “kindness” they are doing for particular s-s couples you’re undoing by giving money to THE HEAD OF NOM.

It should also be pointed out that any cause that might stop movie studios adapting OSC’s terrible version of Hamlet – in which the old king molested Hamlet because the old king was gay and gays do that you know, and Hamlet doesn’t actually seem to have an emotion during the entire thing – is a good cause.

Card has not resigned from nom’s board, which according to their website is fighting back against the assault on marriage- which is weird, because the fight should be moot.

Moot? Why? DOMA was overturned (only partially, I think), but only on federalism grounds, so there’s still 39 states or so where gay marriage is illegal. And because it was overturned on federalism grounds, a federal law legalizing gay marriage would be very unlikely. So it’s a state-by-state thing, and NoM still has more than half of them to “defend.”

You could say that the writing is on the wall and they’ll lose eventually, but gay marriage will probably remain illegal for decades in some states, and conservatives like Card are trying as hard as they can to make that last as long as they can.

Cyrus, dev’s reference to mootness refers back to Card’s recent statement where he asked people to stop being mean to him because the gay marriage issue is now “moot”.

You are correct that NOM and its allies could fight a long and brutal rearguard action, making lots of innocent people’s lives worse, but if they are considering giving up, for god’s sake don’t discourage them!

I don’t know if this is reasonable, but I’ve also stopped giving money to mormons, the thinking being that they are required to tithe a percentage of their income to the church, which was the main prop 8 villain in the first place. So, for instance, the guy who writes Schlock Mercenary isn’t seeing another penny from me.

Hey, a mormon embarrassed by the church’s stance here, but wants to clear up a point. We’re not required per se. We’re just strongly advised to, and the money goes to help others.

As for gay marriage. I’m so sick of the argument. I say give gay people equal rights already and be done with it. I’m certainly not afraid of catching “the gay” like so many paranoid idiots are. I think gay folks should have equal rights already, and I don’t understand how we can treat someone as a lesser human and still call ourselves humane for it. Besides, if people really want to protect marriage’s “sanctity”, maybe it should just be taken away from everyone. Certainly, there’s plenty of straight people profaning the idea already. There are a ton of mormons that feel the same way I do as well. We’re just told to shut up and think straight. So not all of us are the bad guys here, heh heh. *Nervous sweatdrop*

Haven’t ever bought any works by Card which, once I found out what an active little bigot shit he is, I’m glad of.

“Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.”

Such bullshit. Card is the bully who never had any problem being abusively intolerant right up to the the instant someone stood up to him and which point he’s immediately “We should be tolerant of folks.”

I always find it illustrative, when people like Card suddenly start trying to play the “oh well now let’s see if those darn gays are going to be tolerant of other peoples’ intolerance” card to mentally substitute “miscegenation” or “integration” for “gay marriage.” It really shows exactly what a complete and utter fuckhead he, and people like him, are when you get down to brass tacks.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. […] American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

-Orson Scott Card

That sounds like someone who’s decided that the marriage equality issue is settled, right? Not at all like he’ll fight (quite possibly violently) to see that his narrow-minded views are preserved.

I appreciate you clearing that up, and I get that there are mormons who I consider good people- I lived in Utah for a couple of years, and while the people in Wayne County were by and large terrible, Salt Lake City folks were as enlightened as those anywhere else. I can also distinguish individuals from the behavior of the church as a whole, but that doesn’t mean I want my money possibly flowing through them to the church.

But what do you mean that money “goes to help others?” Are tithings kept separate in some kind of charity fund, or does everything go into a pool from which money to promote discrimination is taken?

“The people who will lose money (the studio, the higher-up producers) will then learn that producing a film based on a notoriously bigoted asshole is not a good idea, which is a good thing in my book.”

And this is *precisely* what I’m afraid of. I know that boycotting Ender’s Game isn’t actually censorship, since people have a right to spend their money however they please. I just feel like the sentiment behind this boycott is a sentiment of censorship. It’s not censorship per se, but it’s based in the same logic. Personally, I’m bothered by the idea of a world where perfectly good works of art are rejected wholesale simply because they happen to be created by someone with offensive viewpoints. I can’t help but imagine how much of human culture would’ve been lost out on if people in pre-Internet eras had adopted such an attitude.

“Boycotts, as a general practice, are based on the simple political practice of refusing to throw one’s own time and money to discriminatory activities.”

Except there is no way in which the creation and distribution of Ender’s Game count as “discriminatory activities.” Yes, the story’s author happens to be homophobic, and his views and actions are utterly reprehensible, but there is absolutely NOTHING in the story’s text or subtext that espouses homophobia. Nothing whatsoever.

If Ender’s Game actually promoted a homophobic message, I would support this boycott 100%. As it is, though, I find it troubling. Yes, people have the right to choose not to see a movie… I just happen to disagree with these peoples’ reasons for not seeing this movie.

P.S. There’s a very good chance I might not see Ender’s Game, simply because it doesn’t look like a particularly good film to me. My opposition to this boycott is a matter of principle, more than anything else.

“…and for the people keeping score at home, Card isn’t a homophobic bigot in the “oh man grandpa says some embarrassing things but he’s not really a bad person” sense, Card is a guy who has actively campaigned against gay rights and served as a member of organizations in favor of things like the Defense of Marriage Act. His bigotry isn’t passive, it’s active.”

I’m aware of that. Card could be a mass murderer serving ten consecutive life sentences in prison, and it still wouldn’t impact my opinion on his work. William S. Burroughs deliberately shot his wife in the head! That doesn’t stop people from reading his work, even though that’s something I’d consider far more horrible than anything Card’s ever done.

“John basically gets to the heart of the issue of pretty much anybody who talks about boycotts as “censorship” or “unfair” or “intolerant” or whatever…it’s the up-til-then unchallenged assumption that people are entitled to everyone else’s patronage and that anybody seeking to deny them their rightful earnings through the censorious measure of “encouraging people not to throw their money at things associated with a virulent homophobic bigot”…”

It’s mostly the “associated with” part that I take issue with. If the work itself promoted a homophobic message, that would be one thing, but it’s not. Effectively, the boycotters are sending a message to media producers not to work with people who hold homophobic viewpoints… and that bothers me, not because I support homophobic viewpoints, but because I am disgusted by the idea that “people who believe X” should be blacklisted, even if “X” is something morally deplorable. I acknowledge that it’s not censorship because it’s coming from the consumers, but there’s still a blacklist mentality to this boycott that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

As for Card’s sense of “entitlement” here, I agree that he is not entitled to have his work be a success; no creator is. However, I do think it is unfair to him, at least on some small level, for people who’d otherwise be willing to see this movie to refuse to go solely because of his views.

To extend the civil rights analogy, this is less like boycotting bus companies that force black people to sit in the back of the bus, and more like boycotting bus manufacturers that hire engineers who happen to hold racist views.